clickup_chat_channel_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'List'), uses 'v3 cursor pagination' (important for handling large result sets), and specifies the return format ('array of channel objects' with fields listed). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by pagination details, return format, and a clear alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job by explaining the return format and pagination. However, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or how to handle the cursor pagination in practice, which could be useful for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters ('include_closed' and 'team_id'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('List all ClickUp Chat channels'), resource ('in a workspace'), and scope ('that the authenticated user can see'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'clickup_chat_channel_create' as the alternative for creating channels, and there are other chat-related siblings like 'clickup_chat_channel_get' for single-channel retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides when to use this tool ('List all ClickUp Chat channels') and when to use an alternative ('Use clickup_chat_channel_create to create new channels'). It also implies usage context by specifying 'in a workspace that the authenticated user can see,' which helps differentiate from other list tools like 'clickup_chat_message_list'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.